Jump to content

Talk:Isa Briones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Level of completion

[edit]

... is as good as I can get it, for the time being. There are numerous items on the subject's résumé that I cannot reliably source. ATS (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LACHSA

[edit]

A previous version of this article stated that Briones graduated; that's from her résumé, and I cannot find a WP:RS for this as yet. ATS (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No change. —ATS (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Actor and singer Isa Briones in 2019
Actor and singer Isa Briones in 2019

Created/expanded by ATS (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: New GA article. Both hooks work although I find the first more interesting and easier to understand. I added the freely licensed photo. Feel free to remove.TJMSmith (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]

  • ATS, I went to promote this hook, but see that the first paragraph in the "Music" section ends without a citation. Can you please fix that and ping me when you've done so? Thanks, MeegsC (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MeegsC, bloody hell! It got lost during the rearrangement for GAN. Restored, with my thanks, including for your article fixes. —ATS (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ATS, thanks for updating so quickly. I'm wondering what you think about a slightly modified hook:
Can you let me know? MeegsC (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful tool, live updates, innit? 😁 And, that hook or any similar variation works for me. 🖖🏻 —ATS (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actor vs actress

[edit]

I am unconvinced that the lead sentence should list her as actor. The two references offered in the comments, one url is dead (https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/star-trek-picard/cast/216324/), and the other quotes her as saying, "I think it's every actor's dream to know that you're putting something out that has a built-in audience". This is using the term "actor" as a gender-neutral term to refer to everyone involved in acting. It is not a statement about her preference to be called "actor", nor is it a reference showing that RS refer to her as actor. Lastly, I don't not believe that MOS allows people to decide what they are called. We follow RS. The follow, for example, refers to her as "actress". 'Star Trek: Picard' Actress on Show's "Progressive" Asian-American Representation --LK (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencekhoo: I have included the archive page from the original CBS website which, IMO, is an RS. Additionally, you seem to have passed up what was the capper for me, in the interview for Paste: "... I definitely feel, as a theatre actor, that ..."
In the meantime, I also disagree with removing "and singer" from the lede. The Theatre section provides ample evidence that she has worked professionally as a singer. I am restoring it per BRD.
—ATS (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked as a singer does not mean that she is known as a singer. See WP:BLPLEAD for guideline on what should be on the lead sentence. Note that BRD is not policy. LK (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did read BLPLEAD and 'due weight' seems to be used by you to negate that she was in the first touring company of Hamilton and the youngest such person hired therefor. In addition, BLP may indeed not be policy but is a widely accepted guideline. Revert yourself or I report you. —ATS (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLICY and WP:GUIDELINE should both generally be followed. Note that as stated in MOS:ROLEBIO, the lead sentence should describe a person as "they are commonly described in reliable sources." Isa Briones is not usually described as a singer. I have not seen any news or magazine articles describing her as "the singer, Isa Briones", or "Isa Briones, actress and singer". Unless the majority of RS describe her like this, she should not be described as such. I have found that the overwhelming majority of the RS refer to her as actor or actress. Also, please note that it's considered not WP:POLITE to threaten a fellow editor on Wikipedia. LK (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Literally nothing to which you point—in particular your fully invented 'majority of RS' restriction—makes your case for violating WP:EW; you are warring regardless of whether you wish to admit it.
The CBS page linked in the comment specifically calls her "actor and singer". Official publications linked in the article use the same description, as do Deadline, Good News Pilipinas, GMA and The Society of Composers and Lyricists, just from a cursory search. Whether you have a life outside of Wikipedia (or Star Trek, for that matter) is irrelevant in terms of an edit war, which is always worthy of a report—and waving POLITE in my face changes nothing.
Again, you will restore the data (for purposes of the discussion at the very least) or this will go to the administration. Full stop.
—ATS (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the source in lead sentence calls her an "actress", and does not even mention "singer" in the entire article. This is a pre-existing source, so you know I have not cherry picked. I have changed it per the source, if you want to change it, please provide sources to back up your edit. I don't think you'll have much luck though, I have viewed about 10 other news articles, and they invariably do not refer to her as singer. LK (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reverted. Strongly sourced. Take it to DR. —ATS (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supplying references. It is not enough to claim that something is "well referenced", you must actually supply them. Also, it is not WP:POLITE to keep on accusing another editor of vandalism, when all they are doing is removing uncited material, and asking that it be referenced before it is reintroduced. According to WP:BLP policy, any disputed material in a BLP must be referenced, otherwise it should be removed, it states: "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." LK (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Lead sentence

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.
Option C (but see comment) - There is both a numeric and logical majority in favour of "singer" (C/D vs A/B) and I was going to say there was the same for "actor" (A/C vs B/D), but given that one of the voters for "C" has turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned editor, I am going to auggest that this is a very weak consensus at best. It may be worth relitigating this particular part of the RfC without the distraction of "singer". Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute concerning the lead sentence. Should Briones be described as an actor or an actress, and should she also be described as a singer?

i.e. Should the lead sentence state that "Isabella Camille "Isa" Briones (/ˈiːsə briːˈoʊnɛs/;[2] born January 17, 1999) is":

  1. "an American actor"
  2. "an American actress"
  3. "an American actor and singer"
  4. "an American actress and singer"

The relevant policies are WP:BLPLEAD, which states "The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources"; and MOS:ROLEBIO which states:

... avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. In general, a position, activity, or role should not be included in the lead paragraph if: a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead ..., b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article, or, c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person (e.g. do not add "textbook writer", if the person is an academic).

LK (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
The reporting editor insists he is entitled to remove data per BLP because it is uncited. This is mistaken at best and an outright lie at worst. By point:
A/B: The article subject self-identifies "as a theatre actor" as cited by RS including CBS which identifies her as "actor and singer Isa Briones". In addition to the cited sources, Wikipedia is supposed to respect how a notable person self-identifies per MOS:ID:
use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses.
As the citations within the article would indicate, both 'actor' and 'actress' are used, and recently. To revert to the diminutive is both reductive and ignorant of MOS:ID.
C/D: Prior to the article subject's work on Star Trek:Picard, she was known in numerous US cities and in her father's native Philippines as an award-winning theatre actor and singer. This is supported by numerous cited sources. The editor invokes BLPLEAD via at least five separate falsehoods:
avoid overloading the lead paragraph
'actor and singer' does not constitute "overload";
various and sundry [...] Incidental and non-noteworthy roles
a deliberate misread of what constitutes "non-noteworthy"
a) the role is not otherwise discussed in the lead
it is;
b) the role is not significantly covered in the body of the article
it is;
c) the role is auxiliary to a main profession of the person
it is not.
In short, the editor is engaging in textbook MYWAY by insisting on the removal of cited data. —ATS (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that additional sourcing has been added. —ATS (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C Let's just call it as it is. ~ HAL333 15:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • D. (bot summoned) If major singing roles in musical theater is an important part of the subject's career, then it's legit to let the reader know that right off. Patti Lupone, actress and singer. Carol Channing, actress and singer. Julie Andrews, actress and singer.
    As to the actor/actress thing, we should go with "actress" because:
    • It'd be too cutting edge, even a bit idiosyncratic, to use "actor". Usual form is "actress" in general discourse. That's why Carol Channing and Patti Lupone and Julie Andrews are called "actress" in their articles. Let's not violate normal practice in this local instance.
    • And that's because one's sex is important if your career is acting. It just is. I get that "aviatrix" is deprecated because sex doesn't matter when you're driving a plane, so fine. When you're acting it does. Lots of roles are written for a particular gender and you can't switch it without doing violence to the material (usually). You don't have to like that. You do have to deal with it. If the subject is someone in theater, there's no need to make the reader do the extra work of digging thru the text to find out the important matter of what the person's sex is.
    • If you do want to be all, I don't know, sporty and modern and all, and you still insist on doing it here too, why are you trying to shoehorn women into under the male term? There's nothing shameful about being female. There's nothing wrong with being an actress instead of an actor. There really isn't, and we shouldn't imply that there is is. If we're going to be sqeamish about sex and use one term for thespians, there's no good reason not to use "actress" instead of "actor". Instead of us being like "Isabella Camille 'Isa' Briones is an American actor..." why not "Thomas Jeffrey Hanks is an American actress..."? Tradition? Are you all getting traditional on me all of a sudden? Make up your minds. Herostratus (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If I may: your first point is irrelevant in a living encyclopaedia. Your second is valid, since (among other things) significant acting awards are still separated into categories—she won for Best Actress, after all. But your third misses the point: "shoehorn women into under the male term?" The purpose of the effort to kill off diminutives is the end of 'male' or 'female' terms in favour of a unisex/unigender catchall—and 'actor' is that catchall, since 'actress' can only be female (and Hanks does not ifentify as female, last I checked 🤪). The fact that the article subject refers to herself "as a theatre actor" is all the proof required. —ATS (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      First point is relevant, we are supposed to follow common usage not help set it, we should be inclined to be in the middle of the pack or even lag a bit behind regarding usage. We're here to serve the typical reader not show off how hep we are.
      "Actress can only be female" is nonsense and is basically just a variation of the trope "there are two classes of people, humans and women". Society can and does defines words as it wishes. The only reason one can get away with actress -> actor is that that's a "promotion" if you will, while actor -> actress is a "demotion". There's no need to encourage that kind of thinking. If there was a new term -- "actron" or something -- then maybe it'd be different. But there isn't, yet. For my part I in my writing (not in articles) use the generic she as often as the the generic they or generic he. There's really no reason that people can't, they just don't -- because they don't want to "demote" the subject. I don't have much use for that sort of thing.
      (I'm not suggesting that we describe Tom Hanks as an actress, here. As I said, we need to be conservative. I'm just saying it'd be a fine thing if society would and there's no law against it either.)
      Self-descriptions are really low on the list of good sources as a rule. Everybody wants to describe themselves as this that or the other, for various reasons, as I'm sure you can imagine. Valorizing self-description is valorizing argument from authority and we don't do that. Briones is a thespian, she's not an authority on how the Wikipedia should refer to thespians in general or her in particular. If she self-described herself as unique genius of staggering talent would we defer to that. It's how other people describe you that counts.
      There is literally no other definition of 'actress' than a woman who acts. Otherwise, you argue my point. In addition, "actor and singer" is how CBS, et al., describes her. So, we agree there, too. —ATS (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      But "actor" is ambiguous. "Actress" is not. We're here to serve the reader, is all. We just are. I suppose you might be like "Xe is a thespian, why should the reader care what her gender is?" But readers do care. And you can't make them stop. You can wish they would be more woke, and not care, but that's different. Readers care because it matters. It matters because the roles that an actress takes and thus her career arc is going to be mostly way different than if she was a dude. For one example of literally scores of thousands, take Carol (film). If the director was of the mind "The leads could be two guys, or two gals, or a guy and gal -- why should that matter?", then it doesn't work. Because if it's a guy and a gal, that's a different movie. Briones could have been cast in that movie. She couldn't have been cast as one of the leads in Brokeback Mountain, because that'd be different movie then. Stuff like that matters when the reader is trying to get a grip on the subject. The gender of your waitron doesn't matter. The gender of your doctor doesn't matter. The gender of your uber driver doesn't matter. The gender of the thespian in your film does matter.
      I haven't done a thorough search of sources. However, keep in mind that for matters of form we don't care all that much about sources. If a source says "Briones was born on January 17th, 1999", we do use the fact reported -- the date. We don't use "January 17th" because we don't care about the source for matters of form, we use our style guide which says ""January 17". The actor/actress thing is a matter of form, not facts.
      Our manual of style is suppose to reflect and codify current practice. I don't know what our current practice is, maybe it is "actor" for women, in which case my objection would be essentially removed. We could do a random sample of Wikipedia articles about thespians.
      We're not dismissive of the the forms used by the general public. It's a data point. So let's see, I'll do a google search on Cate Blanchett (chosen at random) and list the results in order:
      • IMdb: actress
      • Wikipedia: actor
      • Rotten Tomatoes: actress
      • Britannica: actress
      • Instagram: doesn't say
      • A fansite (cate-blanchette.com): doesn't say, that I could find
      • Roger Ebert's website: doesn't say, that I could find
      • Fandango: actress
      • Indiewire: doesn't say
      • People Magazine: doesn't say
      • (next three are YouTube, I skipped)
      • Variety: doesn't say
      • Lord of the Rings fansite: actress
      • Daily Mail, quoting George Clooney: actress.
      • popsugar.com: doesn't say, that I could find
      • Golden Globes: doesn't appear to say, except when describing "Best Actress" awards
      That's two google results pages, and I guess we can stop there. Unless you want to do a survey of Wikipedia articles and that works for you, I'm just not finding any way to describe your opinion as anything other than dead wrong on the merits. Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Three things get buried in this massive wall of text:
      • But "actor" is ambiguous. "Actress" is not.
      Precisely! 'Actor' is commonly used to describe both; 'actress' cannot be.
      • For one example of literally scores of thousands, take Carol (film) [...] Because if it's a guy and a gal, that's a different movie. Briones could have been cast in that movie. She couldn't have been cast as one of the leads in Brokeback Mountain, because that'd be different movie then.
      Which is destroyed by your opening statement—'actor' is ambiguous, but then you jump immediately to 'it must mean male'.
      • However, keep in mind that for matters of form we don't care all that much about sources.
      I have to disagree and vehemently. We are not talking about matters of form for, say, a news article or a résumé; we are talking about an encyclopaedia. Sources are our sine qua non.
      —ATS (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      So you would write "on October 8th" in an article if that's how your only source had it?
      Anyway... the actor/actress problem is a subset of the fact that "woman" is always specific and means "female", while "man" can mean "male" or "human", so it's sometimes specific (male) and sometimes ambiguous (person). You have to tease out the the intended meaning from the context... something we want to avoid the reader having to do. "Actress" is never confusing so using that when you can is a win.
      It's a problem of the language! We don't use the "generic he" much anymore even though the intention is "human", because you can take it it mean "male" and that understandably annoys women. There's no super good solution, so we use "they" or "he or she" or "xe" or sometimes continue with the generic he (I use the generic she a lot, but nobody else does apparently). We can't do that here... "Smith was inspired to become an actor or actress because..." just sounds awkward, and "actron" is made up and "thespian" obscure. Most professions don't have this problem (doctor, lawyer, clerk, etc.) but thespian does... Billy Joel's "And the waitress is practicing politics" doesn't really work quite the same if you substitute "waiter"... so maybe some other places too...
      I don't know... what society is trying to do here is confusing. If we're going to be like "Marilyn Monroe was an actor..." why not follow up with "...and he appeared in 17 films" or whatever. I just... what is the sense of mixing "actor" and "she"? We could do "Marilyn Monroe was an actor, and they appeared in 17 films" but... that's a little confusing too. It's really more a problem of society than the Wikipedia. Let's just lean conservative until society gets more woke or whatever. Maybe "actron" will catch on or something. Herostratus (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. As long as you refuse to wrap your head around actor = both (or, more accurately, actor ≠ he), there is no discussion to be had here. —ATS (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I hear you, I'm just not convinced. I guess we're agreeing to disagree... let's see what other people have to say; I added this thread to the "current discussions" at the top of the WP:MOS talk page, and also asked a question about the subject generally at the bottom of said page. Herostratus (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Commented, thanks. 🙂 —ATS (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C - Appears to be supported by sources and detailed int he main body of the article. Also, since the subject of the article seems to prefer "actor" over "actress", that should be used. PraiseVivec (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be extremely cautious about making such leaps of logic such as to say the subject "prefers 'actor' over 'actress'". There's all kinds of reasons why an actress might refer to herself as "actor" (and it would be helpful to know the full context). But unless a female actor says, under no uncertain terms, "I wish to be called actor and not actress", it should never be assumed that that is what they want others to call them, regardless of how they refer to themselves in context. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet the same cannot be used as an excuse to edit war, either. The version that passed GAN is "actor and singer". —ATS (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't know anything about any edit war and we're not adjudicating that here. I was summoned by the bot to weigh in on a matter of form. As to GAN, Good Articles are regularly tweaked. I doubt if the actor/actress thing had much bearing on the results, and I super doubt that there were any reviews on the order of "One thing that makes this a Good Article is that it uses 'actor' rather than 'actress'". If I'm wrong I'm willing to be corrected. Herostratus (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B/D - I have no opinion on mentioning singer or not, but it's like Herostratus said, a casual reader shouldn't have to scroll through the article just to figure out what sex the subject is, if they are an actor/actress; and, that acting is NOT a sex-neutral profession. Sex matters in theatre. HOWEVER, when speaking in the generic sense, the word 'actor' can be all inclusive (similar to 'man'): which is why it should NOT raise any eyebrows if an actress applies the word 'actor' to herself, and why it should not be assumed for that reason that she does not want to be called actress. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The odd concept of scrolling through an article to determine its subject's sex notwithstanding, the fact that pretty much every other sentence has the word 'she' in it would seem to negate this point. 🤪 —ATS (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of the lede is that the reader doesn't have to read thru the rest of the article to get the basic summary of the key points of the entity. Herostratus (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree!
    • for her starring role as Soji
    • android 'daughter'
    • began her career as a model
    • she has acted
    • She won the Ovation Award
    • she returned to New York
    • she sang a new arrangement
    No further reading required.
    —ATS (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmhph. User:ATS, we don't seem to able to sucker anybody else into this discussion, and there're not really enough participants for a quorum, so how about we do this: go to random.com (or whatever random-number-generator website is out there), and roll a ten-sided die. Evens it's "actor", odds it's "actress". Fair enough? I'll let you do it and trust you to be honest. Post your result below! Herostratus (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the laugh, Herostratus. 🤪
Seriously, based on literally every other RfC I've ever seen, without a consensus to change, it should remain as is. 🖖🏻 —ATS]] (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, User:ATS, if it's 9-7, or something. That is "tie". 2-2 is more "no quorum, no result, go to tiebreaker". Let's do it, YOLO. Herostratus (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, random.org comes up first. They seem to default to a six-sided die, so let's use that. Same evens-odd dealy. Herostratus (talk)
OK, here we go... Herostratus (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Six. (https://www.random.org/dice/?num=1, Timestamp: 2021-03-24 18:18:09 UTC.) Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That comes to... actor! Lady luck was with you, congrats, and we're done here! Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(N.B.: I claim that this method is now a precedent.) Herostratus (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
🤣! —ATS (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B/D I see no evidence presented why we should deviate from regular consensus for this article and instead call the female subject an actor as opposed to an actress.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'B maybe eventually A, depending on dominant usage in modern, independent, reliable sources (or D maybe eventually C, depending on that and depending on whether she's genuinely notable for singing as well as acting.) I have no issue with actor as a default. But there is no evidence that actress (along with a few other gendered terms like waitress, TV show hostess, landlady, etc.) has significantly declined in English, and this one remains overwhelmingly dominant across reliable sources of all genres and formality levels, SAG notwithstanding. (Contrast aviatrix, poetess, and authoress which are nearly extinct; chairwoman and policewoman which are in some decline; and comedienne and usherette which are in sharp decline.) See Gender marking in job titles for a fairly well-sourced overview of this stuff (though the article could still use a little work). Anyway, WP has no firm rule on this and is unlikely to have one any time soon. This RfC could theoretically change that but I really doubt it. Many matters are left to editorial judgment at the article, and this is one of them. Due to MOS:STYLERET, since either form is acceptable, no one should be robotically changing actor to actress or vice versa across a lot of articles (see also WP:MEATBOT).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC); revised: 10:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C per MOS:GNL. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I hadn't seen this before. Indeed, GNL further links to WAW—an essay, not a policy—which reads in pertinent part:
    Use gender-neutral nouns when describing professions and positions: actor, author, aviator, bartender, chair, comedian, firefighter, flight attendant, hero, poet, police officer. Avoid adding gender (female pilot, male nurse) unless the topic requires it.
    —ATS (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think its a matter of chronology. We follow what the person uses, or used, but if we canot tell or it is divided, the period of activity completely predates 1960, the presumption is actress. If any of it postdates 1990, the presumption is actor. In between there's no way to presume anything. (And if it changes from one form to another, we use whatever is most recent, as usual. wth name changes) DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, WP is never written that way. We don't start using in Elizabethan English when writing about Shakespeare, or bring out now-essentially-taboo words when writing about the Jim Crow era (except in direct quotations if they seem necessary).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: A duplicate thread was opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Is there a rule somewhere on whether to use "actor" for all thespians, or just male ones?. I closed this per WP:TALKFORK and soft-redirected it to this RfC with a {{Moved discussion to}}.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • C The article has a discography section and you're arguing about whether to call her a singer in the lede? Mo Billings (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without wet-trouting anyone specifically, let's just say I've been involved in far more honest discussions. 😏 —ATS (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Weak consensus"

[edit]

In addition to serious flaws in determining article stability, it appears Jc37 can't count. If every !vote is taken at face value with no further estimation of discussion validity, C has 5.5 to D's 3.5. —ATS (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as noted here by Black Kite, one of the B/D preferences was added by an editor who was indef blocked over a month ago. If this !vote is discounted, C "wins" 5.5 to 2.5, further destroying the close. —ATS (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTAVOTE. Either contest via Jc37 talk page or other further venues, or accept the consensus.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: this has already been decided at ANI, where the incontrovertible consensus is that this was a bad close on an improper "consensus". Please revert yourself as re-close is likely at any time. Thank you. —ATS (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name in lead section

[edit]

I had a question regarding her name in the lead. "Isa" is presumably a shortened form of her birth name, Isabella. Because of this, is it possible to remove the "known professionally as Isa Briones" from the first sentence of the page? Example pages of actors who use nicknames or shortened forms of their first names: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Gene Hackman, and Jodie Foster. —Dog Starkiller (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would not be considered a common short form - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#cite_note-CommHypo-10. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider "Meryl" a common short form for "Mary Louise", or "Jodie" for "Alicia Christian". Some other celebs with uncommon short form names that do not have "known professionally as x" in their lead sections are Kit Harington, Gigi Hadid, Tina Fey, and Bunny Berigan. The last two examples are listed in the page you linked to, as people with uncommon hypocorisms. In these cases, the uncommon nickname is "usually presented between double quotation marks following the last given name or initial" (quote from MOS:PSEUDONYM). Again, would it be possible to change the lead section so it is in accordance with the Manual of Style? Dog Starkiller (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Isa_Briones&oldid=1206436318"